With Mitt Romney’s announcement of candidacy, political commentators focus on public reluctance to elect a Mormon as President. A stunning 66% told the Gallup Poll the nation “wasn’t ready” for a Mormon President, but even more – a startling 84% - said we’re not prepared to elect an atheist. The Romney campaign will no doubt correct many myths about Mormonism, but the public’s reluctance to support an atheist actually makes sense. The Declaration of Independence makes clear that our inalienable rights come from God – we are “endowed by our Creator” – so that anyone who openly denies God’s existence is likely to take the more conventional (and dangerous) view that rights are a gift from government, not the Deity. "The government giveth, the government taketh away..."-- the peril in this approach is too obvious to require explanation.

Similarly, any atheist would be far less willing to affirm absolutes, and far more likely to embrace moral relativism – a real problem in leading a country that’s currently threatened by absolute evil, and requires clear distinctions between timeless right and wrong. Without God, morality becomes negotiable and malleable, and defending God-given rights (for instance) becomes much less imperative.

Finally, Americans love their God-based holidays (Thanksgiving and Christmas, in particular) and the President traditionally issues deeply religious proclamations on these occasions. This tradition goes all the way back to President WAshington; even President Jefferson, a religious non-conformist, convened and attended Christian Sunday services at the Capitol building. With an announced atheist as President, these reverent public occasions could hardly go forward without risk of embarrassing hypocrisy.

These regular ceremonies may seem insignificant but, like "Under God" in the Pledge or "In God We Trust" on the currency, they help reenforce the idea that we are a religious people. Many people of faith consider it profoundly important that the nation move in a more worshipful and spiritual direction; prominent atheists consider it similarly important that the society at large (and the government in particular) move away from ancient "superstitions."

A reverent Mormon in the White House would encourage religiosity in general, as would an observant Jew, or devout Evangelical, or committed Catholic. When the First Family espouses religious faith (as all First Families have, to a greater or lesser extent) it helps make religiosity look normal. In the same way, a proclaimed atheist in the White House would "normalize" a point of view now espoused by only a small minority of our fellow citizens. Those who believe that America benefits when more people deny God and dismiss religiosity could enthusiastically support an atheist President, of course;  the rest of us, who believe that Judeo-Christian faith plays a positive role in this culture, could not and should not support a candidate who openly denies the existence of God.

Among the journalistic elite, bias runs so deep that it sometimes gives rise to bizarre embarrassments in unexpected places.

Consider the following jaw-dropping examples from today’s editions of the nation’s two most prestigious newspapers.

An article by Dennis Overbye in the Science Section of the New York Times described a new book based on previously unpublished lectures by the late astronomer (and outspoken atheist) Carl Sagan. Twice in the course of the brief article, the reporter groups efforts to teach Intelligent Design in public schools with the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as examples of the dangers of “fundamentalist religion.”  For instance, Overbye writes of Dr. Sagan (who died in 1996): “In his absence, the public discourse on his favorite issues – the fate of the planet, the beauty and mystery of the cosmos – has not fared well. The teaching of evolution in public schools has become a bitter bone of contention; NASA tried to abandon the Hubble Space Telescope and censor talk of climate change; and, of course, religious fanatics crashed jetliners into the World Trade Center…”

A few paragraphs later, he talks of the determination of Mr. Sagan’s widow to publish  his work: “It was Ms. Druyan’s impatience with religious fundamentalism that led her to resurrect Dr. Sagan’s lectures….In the wake of Sept. 11 and attacks on the teaching of evolution in this country, she said, a tacit truce between science and religion that has existed since the time of Galileo started breaking down.”

By implication, The Times compares any attempt (by Christians) to question evolution in the public schools with the sucidal mass murder of thousands (by Muslims). Talk about mixing apples and hand-grenades…..

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal ran a highly favorable review of the new book “Nixon and Mao” by Margaret MacMillan. Reviewer George Melloan did point out, however, “one little problem…. with Ms. MacMillan’s smooth flowing narrative.” He noted her description of Richard Nixon as “the best prepared president on foreign policy until Bill Clinton.” Melloan rightly objects that “she seems to ignore the president who, ‘well-prepared’ or not, actually did change the world by leading the Western democracies to a clear victory in the Cold War, Ronald Reagan.”

Aside from the exclusion of Reagan, there’s a bigger problem with her odd phrase. What made Bill Clinton “well prepared on foreign policy”? Since when did the Governor of Arkansas (Clinton’s only elective office prior to the presidency) face diplomatic or international challenges? By “well prepared” did she mean to highlight his controversial vacation in Moscow while a student at Oxford? Or was it his service on the Vietnam Moratorium Committee (where we were long ago colleagues, actually).

Moreover, the man Clinton beat – George Herbert Walker Bush – was the very definition of “well-prepared” when it came to foreign affairs. Not only had he fought heroically against the Japanese in the Pacific, but he had served as U.S. Ambassador the U.N., CIA Director, a member of the House of Representatives, and Ambassador to China.

It’s amazing that none of the editors at Random House (Ms. MacMillan’s puiblisher) caught her truly outrageous declaration that Clinton’s gubernatorial service in Little Rock provided better preparation for international relations than Bush’s years of experience in the US Navy, the CIA, the Ambassadorship in Beijing, the U.S. House of Representatives and the United Nations.

     What's the right response when your enemy perpetrates a genocidal attack against unsuspecting civilians?

      What sort of leader - what sort of person - could suggest that the appropriate reaction to mass murder would be handing the murderer precisely what he wants?

       Monday's appalling suicide bombings in Baghdad illuminate the real American dilemma in Iraq. In an apparent effort to commemorate the one year anniversary of a previous outrage against the gold-domed shrine in Samara, Sunni fanatics blew themselves up in order to slaughter men, women and children at a busy marketplace. The exploded body parts, the shattered limbs, the wailing widows and mothers, can't bring the killers closer to power. But they can bring the entire society closer to chaos.

       American politicians and mass media frame this conflict in such demented terms that homicidal maniacs who can win no victories on the field of battle succeed again and again in the struggle for public opinion. A marketplace explosion may not prove that we're losing the war, but the reaction to that atrocity does suggest that we're losing our character.

       As the enemy reveals his monstrous nature more unmistakably every day, the public seems less and less inclined to resist him. As the Islamo-Nazis intensify their random killing, anti-war Congressmen and candidates resist any effort to describe them as terrorists. Representative Murtha compares them to the “Founding Fathers” who courageously resisted British domination– without noting that the terrorists concentrate on slaughtering their defenseless neighbors, rather than striking at well-armed outsiders. Callers to my radio show earnestly argue that the killers deserve recognition as “freedom fighters.” 

      And what freedom motivates their current fight? The freedom to kill more innocent civilians?

      During World War II, did the Nazi propensity for grisly atrocities against millions of innocents somehow destroy Allied determination to defeat them? Did unspeakable Japanese brutality against Chinese women and children in Nanking persuade the Americans and British that we had no choice but to step back to allow them to continue their depredations without interference?

      Of course, cynics will say that World War II – “the Good War” – featured such clear distinctions among the combatants that it bears no resemblance to the current muddled conflict. In what sense, however, do the suicidal and bloodthirsty “insurgents” qualify as less profoundly evil than their Nazi predecessors?

      The fact that these cruel mass killers seem less formidable, organized and efficient than the Nazis should make us more determined to resist them, not less so.

      Each new incident of savagery and pointless killing should produce more moral clarity, not more confusion and timidity.

      Even in the bitterly controversial war in Vietnam, it didn’t destroy American resolve when the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong allies butchered 20,000 civilians in Hue in February of 1968. Media coverage of enemy atrocities made the Communists less popular in the United States and undermined leftist calls for immediate withdrawal.

      In this conflict, on the other hand, each bloody outrage brings us closer to giving the terrorists precisely what they want. We shouldn’t feel surprised at new levels of depravity when previous horrors brought no negative consequences for the perpetrators in the court of world opinion. In other words, when every blood-curdling attack brings new cries that “they’re winning!” it’s become clear that for many people the terrorist simply can’t lose, no matter what they do.

      The current logic isn’t just warped, it’s diseased: Sunni terrorists murder Shiite civilians and “enlightened” commentators say that America (that wasn’t even targeted, this time) somehow had it coming.

      If our adversaries see that their murder of distant Iraqis moves us closer to surrender, they can only conclude that attacks on Americans (particularly on our own soil) would make us even more paralyzed and divided. In this context, the national unity and resolution that followed 9/11 could be viewed as a brief aberration – a one-of-a-kind exception to the general rule that if Americans see enough mayhem and gore, they’ll want to reach for the remote control and find something else to watch.

      Rather than changing the channel, we need to change ourselves. The current debate over Iraq  touches inevitably, painfully on questions of national character – ours as well as theirs. By what logic do those who urge us to quit-and-go-home expect that this surrender will make Iraqis safer from the mad butchers among them, or make us more secure from those implacable foes that closely monitor not just our ability but our willingness to defend ourselves?

      We expose ourselves to endless new threats and even potential collapse unless we manage to recover the healthy and necessary instinct to respond to intensified brutality with a stiffening determination to fight back.

   Does the controversial contemporary political movement known as  “The Christian Right” bear primary responsibility for tilting American foreign policy toward Israel?

   Of course, secular liberals love blaming conservative Christians for all of the nation’s woes: if they could figure out a way to associate them with global warming (all the hot breath generated when Pentecostals speak in tongues, perhaps?) they would no doubt make the case.

  When it comes to mobilizing support for Israel, no one can deny the disproportionate role of Christian conservatives. Ironically, it’s much harder to associate Jews with pushing a pro-Israel policy, because so many Jews identify with the blame-America left, and many of the loudest apologists for Palestinian terror happen to be Americans of Jewish ancestry. Moreover, the idea that “Jewish influence” led to the War in Iraq hardly comports with the record of the twelve Jewish U.S. Senators in authorizing that conflict. While the Senate at large gave President Bush overwhelming support for liberating Iraq (with more than 75% of non-Jewish Senators backing the war), the Jews in the Senate split up the middle—with half of them opposing the Bush policy from the beginning.

  Christian conservatives, on the other hand, have provided the administration with its most reliable backing in confronting Islamo-Nazi terror, and have never wavered in their sympathetic commitment to Israel’s fight for survival.

   Contrary to popular belief, however, this Zionist commitment of Evangelical leaders hardly constitutes a novel development associated with the emergence of the contemporary Christian Right: as Israeli historian Michael Oren makes clear in his fascinating new book “Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East,” the support for a Jewish homeland in ancient Judea goes all the way back to the colonial period.

   Elias Boudinot, for instance, President of the Continental Congress in the last years of the Revolutionary War, prophesied that Jews, “however scattered….are to be recovered by the mighty power of God, and restored to their beloved…. Palestine.” In the Revolutionary War, the young nation’s small Jewish community (just 3,000 strong) supported the cause of Independence more unanimously than any other segment of the population, providing wildly disproportionate numbers for George Washington’s Army (including ancestors of my wife, Diane, who qualified her for her membership in the D.A.R., Daughters of the American Revolution).

   The passionately devout  John Adams wrote: “I really wish the Jews in Judea an independent nation….A hundred thousand Israelites marching triumphantly into Palestine.”

   In 1863, Abraham Lincoln declared that that “restoring the Jews to their homeland is a noble dream shared by many Americans” and he promised that the U.S. could work toward that goal once the Union prevailed in the War Between the States.

   Less than thirty years later, another Republican President (and ardent Christian) Benjamin Harrison received the Blackstone Memorial—a petition drafted by the famous Methodist evangelist (and close colleague of Dwight Lyman Moody) Dr. William Eugene Blackstone of Chicago. This extraordinary 1891 document, signed by 400 hugely wealthy and prominent American Christians (including tycoon John D. Rockefeller, future president William McKinley, and the dominant banker  JP Morgan) called on President Harrison to convene an international conference to plan restored Jewish sovereignty in ancient Israel. Though the grand conclave never materialized (Harrison lost the presidency the next year), those advocating a Jewish polity in the Middle East began calling themselves “Zionists,” though, as Oren points out, “the vast majority of the movement’s members remained Christian rather than Jewish.” At the turn of the century, Theodore Roosevelt (another believer in “muscular Christianity”) wrote: “It seems to me that it is entirely proper to start a Zionist State around Jerusalem and that the Jews be given control of Palestine.”

   Even more fatefully, Harry Truman incorporated the lessons of his Baptist upbringing (in which he learned much of the Bible by heart) as a member of the pro-Zionist American Christian Palestine Committee and, even before his presidency, an advocate of the right of Jews to make new homes for themselves in the Middle East. Oren argues that this background played a decisive role in Truman’s willingness to defy the nearly unanimous sentiment in both his State and Defense departments and in May of 1948 to put the U.S. on record as the first nation to grant formal recognition to the newly declared State of Israel.

  Regarding our current President, his stalwart support for the Jewish state (leading many observers to identify him, along with Reagan, as the most pro-Israel president in history) contrasts with the more mixed and uncertain record of his father – quite possibly reflecting the notably more intense, Evangelical religiosity of the younger President Bush. In this regard, George W. Bush bears more in common with a distant ancestor, the New York University Bible scholar George Bush who wrote an 1844 bestseller “The Valley of the Vision” calling on the U.S. to make use of its economic and even military resources to re-establish a Jewish commonwealth on the site of the Biblical homeland.

   This fascinating but little-known history of American Christian “restorationism” or “Zionism” gives the lie to recent attempts to link strong support of the Jewish state by fervent believers to current, trendy apocalyptic visions like the “Left Behind” Series. The instinctive Christian backing for Israel doesn’t stem from some sudden, dangerous passion to hasten the end of the world and convert all the Jews, or the political exigencies of the reborn right. It arises instead from the long-standing American infatuation with Biblical text, both Old and New Testament, and the centuries-old assumption that the United States could play a profound and powerful role in helping God renew an ancient covenant.  

Two days ago, in blogging about the abortion records of the serious GOP Presidential prospects (McCain, Giuliani, Romney), I provoked a great deal of anger by writing off the other current contenders (Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Ron Paul, Gilmore, Thompson, Duncan Hunter) as “lesser” candidates who stand no realistic chance of winning primaries or grabbing the nomination. No matter how much you may admire these people, their candidacies are irrelevant – more a bid for attention, or a preparation for future races, than a realistic bid for power.

Those who believe that any of the little-known wannabes could conceivably pull a huge upset and carry the 2008 convention in Minneapolis need to face one crucial question:

When, in the last 60 years of Presidential politics, did any obscure underdog manage to defy the odds and win the nomination of the Republican Party?

Yes, Democrats have had a few off-brand, odd-ball contenders who came out of nowhere to beat bigger names – including Carter in ’76, Clinton in ‘92 and, arguably, Dukakis in ’88. But even Democrats hand nominations reliably to front-runners like Stevenson, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore and, most likely, Hillary.

In the GOP, however, front-runners don’t just usually win; they always win.

The last time a genuine underdog grabbed the Republican nomination was 68 years ago, when a celebrity lawyer with no political experience named Wendell Wilkie managed to stampede a divided convention.

Consider the GOP nominees since 1960, when Richard Nixon (the sitting Vice President and virtually unopposed) became the candidate. Four years later it was Goldwater, celebrity conservative and bestselling author who had emerged as the leading candidate two years ahead of time. Then Nixon again (’68) and once again (’72) and then the incumbent President (Ford) in ’76. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, former governor of the nation’s largest state and beloved movie star, finally won the nomination on his third try. In ’84, Reagan again and four years later his sitting VP, George H.W. Bush. In 1992 the GOP chose Bush again (laughing off a destructive challenge by Pat Buchanan) and in ’96 it was Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (on his third try for the nomination). In 2000, Texas Governor (and Presidential off spring) George W. Bush became the prohibitive favorite more than two years before the election, and he won uncontested re-nomination four years later.

Where, in this huge chunk of GOP history, do we see a single example of a Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo or Jim Gilmore emerging from anonymity to contend seriously for the Presidency?

In 2000, a number of fringe candidates (the irrepressible Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, Orrin Hatch, Steve Forbes) conducted campaigns long enough to appear in debates but provided little distraction from the serious business of choosing between Bush and McCain.

In 2008, it’s less likely than ever that some underdog could emerge from the pack to shake up the dynamics of the race. At least in the past, a minor candidate could concentrate all his attention on Iowa or New Hampshire, develop momentum through a surprisingly strong showing, raise big money as a result, and then manage to compete in the later, big state primaries. This time, however, the entire process has been front-loaded: California will follow immediately after New Hampshire so there’s no chance whatever to gather enough funds to make a last-minute run at a huge state with multiple (and wildly expensive) media markets.

Contrary to the beliefs of conspiracy-minded paranoids, the dominance of the M-G-R (McCain-Guiliani-Romney) Triad isn’t the result of fateful decisions made by some corporate or media elite. It’s simply a question of name-recognition and the ability to raise money.

McCain ran a strong race six years ago, trading heavily on his war-hero status, and has never really stopped running since that time. Giuliani became a national hero after 9/11, as “America’s Mayor” and the Time magazine Man of the Year. Romney remains less well-known than his rivals, but as a spectacularly successful titan-of-turnaround in the business world, he can raise big money from his fellow tycoons (and, of course, from his fellow members of the LDS church).

To a surprising extent, each of today’s big three could count as an “outsider,” and none of them represent the current GOP Establishment. The President and his associates have run the Republican Party since 2006, and no die-hard Bushies would willingly pick McCain, Rudy, or Romney. Ironically, the three potential candidates closest to the Bush family --- Jeb Bush, Condaleezza Rice and Dick Cheney – all declined to make the race. Whoever wins the Republican nomination next year, the party will see a significant changing of the guard.

In this context, let me say just a few words about some of the comments posted to my blog when I previously wrote about the Presidential race. A reader who identifies himself as “George W. Bush” declared:

“All the Establishment candidates that the multinationals, large interest groups, and the media, Medved included, decide are suitable for us, Giuliani, McCain and Romney, are nothing but empty suits. You can only find conservatives in what Medved calls the ‘lesser’ candidates. But then again I can see why conservatives would be at odds with Talk Radio, we the people are not paid schmucks for the Republican Party, Medved is…. The conservatives need to take the party back or start a new one in its place. Or are you going to listen to the propaganda that Medved spews….”

In a similar vein, “Thoreau” asked:

“Who is Medved kidding?...Instead of mocking this second tier of candidates how about having them on your show. Plus who decided that Romney is my front runner, who decided that GWBush was my front runner in ‘99, it seems to me that Big Media including townhall.com and Fox are pushing Rudy and Mitt upon us and I ask at who’s behest?”

I’m not sure Thoreau has actually paid much attention to “Big Media,” but if he had he might have noticed that the most influential organs of communication haven’t been pushing Rudy and Mitt (alas!), but they have been promoting Barack and Hillary, and doing so relentlessly. Anyone want to compare the amount of positive coverage devoted to the Junior Senator from Illinois to the amount of attention lavished on all Republicans combined?

The notion that I work as “a paid schmuck for the Republican Party” strikes me as particularly amusing. You’re free to believe that I’m a “schmuck” (the original German meaning actually denotes “jewelry,” to tell the truth) but I can assure you that I’m not paid for it. The last time I received any remuneration for political work was in 1972 – when I was still a Democratic speechwriter and consultant. (I changed my registration during the Reagan campaign of 1980). My enthusiastic commitment to the Republican Party has cost me money (in contributions, and lavish commitments of time) not paid me money.

Moreover, only a delusional loser could credit the idea that “Big Media” somehow follows an organized agenda – that I get memos or directives or talking points from corporate bosses who dictate my opinions. Herewith, a startling disclosure that should help reveal the true nature of Talk Radio: I can solemnly affirm that I have never –repeat, never—discussed the 2008 Presidential campaign with my syndicators, or bosses, or the General Managers of our 200 stations, or any other corporate officials who might seek to influence my opinions. In ten years of broadcasting, I have never been instructed to “go easy” on a certain candidate, or promote a particular contender.

Those who believe that some secret cabal dominates all of Talk Radio should consider this: my show airs in major markets on many of the same stations that carry a broadcaster who calls himself “Michael Savage.” I often listen to his show on my way home after I’m done with my live broadcast. Not only does this colleague regularly rip President Bush and the Republican Party, he’s called in the past for the President’s impeachment (for “treason” among other things). He also speaks in hostile, derisive, dismissive terms about the M-G-R Triad, expressing contempt and hatred for McCain, Giuliani and Romney alike. In fact, a few days ago Dr. Weiner (a.k.a. Michael Savage) devoted most of an entire show to discussing his own prospective campaign for the Republican nomination—a juggernaut which will no doubt pose just as great a threat to the status quo as the Tancredo bandwagon or the Ron Paul boom.

If “Big Media” had actually decided which candidates secretly to anoint, how could it be that literally dozens of stations would broadcast both the Michael Medved Show and the Michael Savage Show, simultaneously promoting two radically different perspectives? (No, I won’t be backing the Savage-for-President jihad).

The truth of the matter is that talk radio and internet outlets like Townhall provide for a huge range of free-wheeling, two-fisted, openly debated, fervently disagreeing conservative opinion: there’s no malign, omnipotent power cutting off dissent or discussion.

And yes, I long ago invited each of the minor Republican candidates to come on my show, and I’ve promised to give each of them a full hour on the air (having previously welcomed McCain and Romney for fascinating interviews, with Rudy scheduled in a few days). The Huckabees and Brownbacks of this world haven’t gotten themselves well-enough organized to actually respond to my standing invitation, but when they finally get their acts together and agree to talk with me and with listeners on the air, I’m sure they’ll provide entertainment and enlightenment. And then, after this diverting discussion, we can get back to the serious business of actually selecting a serious candidate for President among the obvious, inescapable Big Three.

On the radio show today (Wednesday), I welcomed the most extraordinary guest: a “Homeless Advocate” named Ray Kavick.

When you pronounce his name aloud, it sounds like “Wreak Havoc,” but since I’ve lived with the unlovely handle “Medved” for my whole life, I try to stay away from making fun of names.

In any event, Mr. Kavick, 22 years old, identifies himself as one of the organizers of “Camp Quixote, “an unauthorized squatter’s village of 23 tents in a city-owned parking lot in Olympia, Washington. He and his colleagues organized the camp in order to protest a city council decision to outlaw sleeping or sitting on the downtown sidewalks during business hours. They have announced their intention to defy orders from the city manager and the police to clear the area by the end of the week, and suggest that they will practice passive resistance in the face of any attempt to remove “Camp Quixote.”

In the course of our on-air conversation, Mr. Kavick revealed that he had worked as a landscaper up until three months ago, but now devotes his full-time efforts to his activism for the homeless. He considers himself “homeless” himself, even though he lives in a house with friends in Olympia when he’s not camping on city-owned property. Kavick and Co. want the city to give them permanent squatting rights either on the parking lot they’ve seized, or else on another suitable parcel of land. Considering the value of downtown property in Olympia (the Washington state capital) I asked whether it seemed fair to give homeless activists an expensive piece of land, when others might work and save and scrimp in order to purchase a similar parcel.

In response to this challenge, Mr. Kavick spoke about his homeless brethren and insisted that “they deserve some housing from the city.”

Deserve?

I bridled at the word, and asked him what the so-called homeless – more properly identified as transients, vagrants, drug addicts and the mentally ill – had done to deserve any sort of reward from public officials.

He couldn’t answer the question, of course, but fell back on his passionate insistence that the city somehow had an obligation to construct low cost housing, and to make that housing available to members of his group.

This little interchange (you can access it through michaelmedved.com) reveals the essential folly behind all socialist and liberal thinking.

Leftists believe that all human beings “deserve” generous treatment by government – which means that other people, who work hard for their homes, must pay for people who choose (like Ray Kavick) to stop working.

Consider the long- term impact of such policies. If you pay for something, you encourage people to do it, but if you charge for another course of action, you discourage that activity. This is human nature: if you get fined for littering, you’re less likely to litter, but if government pays a bonus to toss litter onto the stree, you’d be sorely tempted to deposit garbage everywhere.

By providing benefits to people who don’t work, we encourage idleness; by seizing taxes (at ever increasing rates, the more you earn) from people who do work we encourage our most productive citizens to “ease off.”

A core conservative principle suggests that it’s wrong to argue that people “deserve” housing or food or medical care or new cars or cell phones (nearly all the homeless have cell phones in Olympia) simply by virtue of breathing. Common sense dictates that good behavior deserves good results; bad behavior deserves bad results. To the extent that we abandon or undermine this simple formula, we move our society toward socialist madness.

Ray Kavick claimed (contrary to his group’s official position) that he didn’t want or expect government help, but he welcomed contributions from the general public. It makes no sense that hard-working wage-earners should hand over cash to homeless-by-choice radicals like Mr. Kavick. Compassionate people (including many religious conservatives) take on the burden of working with homeless populations in order to help them repair broken lives and begin working in order to establish their own homes (not encampments in parking lots behind bars).

Some day, Mr. Kavick may indeed “deserve” money and respect from his neighbors, but only when he cuts down on the sleep-till-noon “activism” and gets himself a job. And no, agitating against reasonable public ordinances (do we really want to allow bums and winos to sleep off their binges on sidewalks in waking hours?) doesn’t constitute useful work in any sense.

  In the GOP, pro-life forces represent a clear majority so all the leading Presidential candidates try to appeal to this crucial component of the party.

  Rudy Giuliani says he "hates abortion" and promises to appoint strict constructionist judges in the Alito/Roberts mold, but still identifies himself as "pro-choice"

  Mitt Romney ran for Senate in Massachusetts claiming to be "pro choice" and did little to address the issue as governor, but now says he learned with experience and warmly embraces the pro-life cause.

  John McCain, on the other hand, has a consistent, unabashed, admirable pro-life voting record -- and among the viable candidates, he clearly can make the strongest pitch to anti-abortion activists. If enlisting the federal government on the side of human life is your main concern in this campaign, and you want a president who can become a strong anti-abortion voice, McCain is probably your man -- but many other things about him (his vote against Bush tax cuts, his unpredictability, his support for misguided campaign finance reform, his complicated and questionable role in undermining fellow Republicans on judicial confirmations, etc. ) make him questionable.

   Should pro-lifers hold their noses and go with McCain? Should they embrace the new Romney and forget about the old Romney? Or should they cast their lot with Rudy based on his promises to appoint  "strict consturctionist judges" and as the most electable alternative to pro-abortion militants Hillary, Barack and Edwards?

  These are all legitimate questions that don't have to be decided for a while. Meanwhile, lesser candidates (Huckabee, Brownback, Thompson, Gilmore, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo) look increasingly feeble and unfundable-- trying to advance their prospects as Vice Presidential possibilities, rather than making any serious, credible run for the Oval Office.

   Like it or not, the most wide-open Presidential donnybrook in 56 years has come into focus with remarkable speed, with three clear front runners on each side. One of the long-shot Democrats (like Bill Richardson of New Mexico) could conceivably break through and attract enough support to compete with the Big Three (Hillary, Obama, Edwards) but on the GOP side the race looks even more like a three-way affair.

Along with Christmas, Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July, Super Bowl Sunday has become our most important national holiday, so the House of Representatives couldn’t let the occasion pass without taking a fearless stand on the great event.

On January 30, at 3.57 PM, your elected representatives suspended their rules and took time out from less important things to pass House Resolution 90, courageously introduced by Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick of Detroit.

That Resolution began:

“Whereas in the 40 Super Bowls prior to Super Bowl XLI to be held on February 4, 2007, no National Football League (NFL) team that played in the Super Bowl had an African-American head coach;

“Whereas on January 21, in Chicago, Illinois, the Chicago Bears, coached by Lovie Smith – an African-American – defeated the New Orleans Saints by a score of 39 to 14 in the National Football Conference Championship game and advanced to Super Bowl XLI…”

House Resolution 90 then went out for ten more “Whereas” clauses (including one about “Frederick Douglass ‘Fritz’ Pollard” who “became the first African-American head coach in the NFL in 1922,” before finally reaching the grand punch line:

“Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates Lovie Smith of the Chicago Bears and Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts for their accomplishments and for being the first African-American head coaches of National Football League teams to qualify for the Super Bowl.”

Believe it or not, Congress-person Kilpatrick put her hard-hitting resolution to a roll-call vote and despite the tension and uncertainty in the galleries, the measure carried by a razor thin margin of 425 to zero. Shamefully, 10 members of the House (including two Democrats and eight Republicans) didn’t bother to take a position on this critical issue and found themselves recorded as “Not Voting.”

I’ve taken the trouble to report on this Congressional waste of time not out of disrespect to Tony Dungy (the well-deserved Super Bowl victor) or to Lovie Smith (another class act, who’s hardly responsible for the much-discussed shortcomings of Rex Grossman).

Both coaches deserve no end of recognition and praise for their leadership, their character, their fervent Christian commitment (as unapologetic believers, both of them) and for their seemingly effortless triumph over any racist obstacles placed in their paths.

But did Smith and Dungy really need a Congressional resolution?

This isn’t just a harmless indulgence; it’s a prime example of an attitude to government that’s led to the obscene growth of federal bureaucracy and the outrageous squandering of taxpayer funds.

Yes, a Congressional resolution counts as a “nice gesture.” But was it, in any sense, a necessary investment of public time and public money? Consider the staff hours that went into researching and wording House Resolution 90: surely, someone had to look up the fact that “Frederick Douglas ‘Fritz’ Pollard” became the first African-American coach in 1922. No doubt, whichever members of Representative Kilpatrick’s staff prepared this meaningless vote, they have invested similar exertions (as government workers) in countless other ceremonial displays. The House also invested funds in the publication of this resolution in the Congressional Record, and for the extra time taken to suspend the rules, introduce the measure, and vote on it in the midst of (one would hope) more serious business.

For many years, our elected representatives have failed to ask the crucial question before they take action: does this measure, this expenditure, represent a necessary, essential exercise of government power?

It members of the House and Senate (and all executive departments) learned to ponder that question before they moved forward, at least half of all federal initiatives would disappear and the American people would get the chance to keep and spend far more of their own money.

No, we don’t need the Congress to take an official position on the two black coaches who brought their teams to the Super Bowl; nor do we need the billions and billions of dollars assigned to various “nice” projects by Washington D.C. Last session, for instance, the Congress authorized $500,000 for the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, Washington. I love the Museum of Glass, and I’ve visited several times, but the assignment of federal money (like the even more generous grant to the Teapot Museum in Sparta, North Carolina) represents an outrageous misdirection of federal resources. The citizens of Sparta (and Tacoma, for that matter) ought to be capable of supporting their own local museums.

And NFL head coaches ought to be capable of savoring the excitement and exaltation of the Super Bowl even without Congressional action. Instead of getting detoured with silly (and ultimately childish) stunts like House Resolution 90, our legislators should concentrate all their energy on more important efforts – like shoring up national security, dealing with the looming entitlement crisis, tightening border security, simplifying the insanely complicated tax code, and, yes, cutting back on waste and stupidity in the federal government.

At this early stage of the 2008 Presidential race, voters know little or nothing about most of the two dozen candidates. Would average citizens readily identify names like Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Tom Vilsack, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul?

Even among the better-known, more celebrated candidates, the public associates them with a single, simplistic designation. Hillary Clinton is “the former first lady” and the wife of somebody most Americans like. Barack Obama is the young, slick “African-American candidate.” John Edwards is the guy with the perfect hair who talks about “Two Americas.” Rudy Giuliani is the “hero mayor” of 9/11 – which is why he runs so strongly in the polls. John McCain is a “maverick” – whatever that means. And Mitt Romney? If poll respondents recognize him at all (and in recent surveys, most of them do not) they know only that he’s a Mormon.

The lack of further information about Romney (and his rivals) helps to explain why his religious orientation looms so large at the moment—and looks as if it could sink his Presidential aspirations.. Most members of the public know nothing about Romney’s dazzling achievements in business and as governor of Massachusetts. They’ve received little exposure to his undeniable charisma and charm, they’ve never heard about his robust conservative platform.

When people respond to Mitt Romney at this stage in the campaign, they’re expressing their attitudes toward Mormonism –not their reaction to a specific and dynamic candidate.

When pollsters ask abstract questions like “would you vote for a Mormon for President” or “do you think America’s ready for a Mormon president,” the responses don’t reveal anything about the status of the Romney campaign. They only prove that the LDS Church remains a controversial religious organization, with many people distrusting or disliking its theology and leadership. When large percentages (over 20% in some polls) say they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon for President, that’s not a response to Romney’s candidacy (about which most people remain totally uninformed) but a reaction to Mormonism in general.

When the former Massachusetts governor begins to fill in the blanks about his personality and his past, when voters get to know his family (with five ridiculously handsome, over-achieving sons, and a beautiful wife currently stricken with MS), when they hear about his record in rescuing failing businesses and turning around a troubled Olympics, his religious commitment will look far less significant or influential.

As with Jack Kennedy and Joe Lieberman, when voters get to know the truth about the candidate, most of them will overcome their general reservations about his religion.

In February, 2007, Mitt Romney may look like a one dimensional “Mormon candidate.” But by February of 2008 (when Republicans express their preferences in the most crucial caucuses and primaries) he’ll win or lose on a far more substantive basis than his affiliation with one of the nation’s fastest growing religious faiths. His devout adherence to the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints may look like a huge handicap at the moment, but the vast majority of GOP voters will base their ultimate decisions on factors other than the faith of the candidates.

I love hiking, and support trails, but why should the federal government get involved?

A story in today’s Seattle Times (front page of the Local Section) highlights the stupidity of Washington using taxpayer money to fund “nice” but unnecessary projects.

The report proudly announces:

“Congress revived legislation Wednesday to create a geologic trail that would trace the route of a series of catastrophic ice age floods that inundated much of the Pacific Northwest….Visitors could drive the 600 mile trail and stop at interpretive centers and roadside pull-outs to read signs and markers and learn about the floods that were unleashed when an ice dam in what is now Montana collapsed….The Ice Age Flood National Geologic Trail would cost $8 million to $12 million to create, and the National Park Service would oversee it.”

I’m sure that the handful of Americans who drive along the new “National Geologic Trail” will enjoy the experience, but why should the rest of us pay for their tour?

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) is the prime sponsor of the legislation and she told the presss: “The size and scope of what happened here is hard to fathom. This is one of the most unique events in the geologic history of the Earth. We usually see things like this on other planets.”

Has Senator Cantwell used taxpayer money for a fact-finding trip to Mars? How else do we understand her comment that “we usually see” anything on other planets?

But beyond the inanity of the comment, there’s the inanity of the concept: that something nice, that people may enjoy, deserves support from the Federal government and from all the nation’s taxpayers.

The Ice Age Flood National Geologic Trail hardly constitutes the worst example of squandered federal resources: the budget (just approved by the House) is full of ridiculous expenditures to accomplish things that the states, localities, or private citizens and organizations could easily accomplish without the involvement of Washington, D.C. Then there are dubious programs (like $45 million for an indoor rainforest experiment in Iowa) that serve such frivolous purposes that if the feds cut funding, no one would replace the money.

In order to rebuild the conservative movement and the Republican Party after recent reverses, we need to affirm one core principle in terms of budget priorities: NO federal money for tasks or projects that states or local governments or the private sector could handle without federal help. It’s not enough that an undertaking seems worthy, or popular, or appealing. Conservatives must force the question: is this something (like national defense, or border security, or printing currency) that only the feds can do? Or is this some intriguing undertaking that would work better if controlled by people closer to the project rather than by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.? Why should taxpayers in “the other Washington” (Washington state) send their money across the country in the hope that Congress will agree to send some of it to the Interior Department so that those officials will then send some of it all the way back across the country to build a trail in our own back yard?

A federal government stripped to its bear essentials means a radically decentralized society – and more power and autonomy for states, cities, private organizations and, yes, individual citizens.

We need to support precisely that sort of radical democratization – and reduction in Federal meddling, no matter how well-intended.

Like many other conservatives, I spent a few minutes on the radio today deriding Presidential candidate John Edwards over his insanely lavish new home—what a local North Carolina newspaper alliteratively anointed, his “Decadent Digs.”  The yet-to-be-completed mansion, sited on a 102 acre plot (from which the former Senator clear-cut a dense forest), features 29,000 square feet of floor space, including indoor basketball court, racquet ball court, and pool. Valued officially at six million dollars, it is by far the largest and most expensive residential property in the county.

Edwards apologists say that those of us who’ve been mocking “Uncle John’s Cabin” demonstrate the rankest hypocrisy.

Don’t conservatives celebrate the accumulation and indulgence of wealth? Edwards, who began life in humble circumstances, has lived “the American dream,” according to his admirers. Republicans regularly denounce class warfare and the politics of envy. Why encourage such attitudes now when it comes to a mill-worker’s son who made good, but tries in his politics to keep faith with his own disadvantaged past?

In response to these challenges, four points seem pertinent:

1)      Edwards made his money as a trial lawyer, not as an industrialist or entrepreneur who built jobs and enriched the economy. Ambulance chasers like Edwards don’t create wealth; they seize wealth from its creators in the name of “suffering victims.” There are also serious questions about his misuse of his own S-type corporation to dodge taxes, and the shady sale of his previous mansion in Georgetown in a sweetheart deal with a supporter who’s currently under government investigation. No, free market enthusiastics don’t confer equal respect on all accumulations of wealth: a rich pornographer like Larry Flynt, for instance, deserves less admiration than an innovator and job builder like Bill Gates or even a real estate tycoon like Donald Trump. The often idiotic lawsuits on which Edwards built his career damaged the economy and fueled the destructive culture of victimhood, while building nothing at all and benefiting only the lawyer and his clients. On what basis can Democrats argue that government should cap or actively discourage big salaries for successful corporate heads, but never consider such a limitation for a court-room conniver like Edwards?

2)      Edwards has built both his Presidential campaigns on the “Two Americas” theme – claiming that there’s profound danger in the emerging gap between a handful of super-rich, absurdly privileged people and the rest of the populace. It’s revealing that his choice of a domicile for his family places him so emphatically in the master class America of the “stinking” rich. I hope the media will press Senator Edwards (who four years ago reported his net worth as between $19 million and $69 million) on the nature of his mortgage on his six million dollar home. Does he hold a four million dollar mortgage? Does he write-off the interest on this huge amount as a tax deduction, and how much does that write-off cost the government? Does he think it’s fair to get a huge tax break because he chooses to live in a huge home? (I don’t, by the way – and one of the appealing aspects of a Fair Tax – that is, a simple consumption tax – is that it gets rid of special breaks for the more fortunate, like the home mortgage deduction).

3)      Has Edwards spoken to his pal Al Gore about his lavish, energy soaking plantation? Anyone calculated the “carbon footprint” of a 29,000 square foot home? Can you imagine how much natural gas or electricity or nuclear power (only kidding) it takes to heat that puppy? Consider the huge contribution to Global Warming (identified by Edwards and all other Democrats as a dire threat to civilization) by chopping down a hundred acres of forest and installing this monstrously excessive residence.

4)      As for Edwards exemplifying “The American Dream,” do we really want to identify that timeless vision with conspicuous consumption of the tackiest and most irresponsible sort? Aaron Spelling got criticized for his Edwards-like mansion because it seemed like such a selfish, narcissistic, tasteless display. Does Edwards really want to suggest that the ultimate goal for every striving American should be a house that’s ten times the size of a normal, spacious mansion (twenty times the size of the average family residence). Here in the Northwest, the Seattle community recently celebrated a retired history teacher at a public high school (Ballard High), who invested his money well, lived far below his means in a tiny house, and just donated more than a million dollars to benefit the history department as his Alma Mater, the University of Washington. I thought liberals cherished the idea that the ultimate goal in life should involve something more than materialistic display. Of course, for Edwards there is something more: the single-minded and ruthless pursuit of power.

The worst part of the story involves the total, absolute disconnect between the way Edwards talks and the way he lives. He says he identifies with “the little guy,” but he chooses to raise his family in vastly more lavish circumstances than the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, or even the Bushes (no, the family homes in Crawford and Kennebunkport don’t come close to the grandeur or sheer size of the Edwards palace.)

He’s proud of the fact that he got rich, but at the same time the candidate wants to make it vastly harder for other Americans to follow his example. The taxation and redistribution policies he advocates would fall most heavily on precisely those upper-middle class creators and producers and strivers who might dream of someday moving from a comfortable suburban home (2,000 square feet? 4,000?) into a baronial manor house in the Edwards style.

Yes, it amounts to shabby double talk for the luxury-loving-lawyer to suggest that once he’s made his pile and built his plaintiff’s-bar-palace, government should raise the drawbridge and block the way from anyone else coming across the moat and into the castle.

Small pieces of evidence occasionally turn up in unexpected places to help make the case that the Republic has changed in unpleasant and unwelcome ways.

I recently bought a CD (a SuperAudio CD, in fact) of music by a great and undeservedly obscure American composer: Don Gillis, who died in 1978, but created most of his important pieces in the years before and just after World War II. For those who love the jazzy, explosively energetic, lyrical and instantly catchy scores of George Gershwin, or who savor the gentle, nostalgic Americana of Roy Harris (my one time mentor) or Aaron Copland (in his populist mode), Gillis delivers some of the same infectious rewards.

In any event, the new CD provides rousing, gorgeously recorded performances (by a fine Warsaw orchestra, surprisingly enough) of three of the most important Gillis symphonies: Number 1 (“An American Symphony”), Number 2 (“A Symphony of Faith”) and  Number 5 ½ (“A Symphony for Fun.”). The handsome 2006 release features notes by a writer named Roy Bono who writes admiringly of Gillis, a life-long Baptist and unabashed patriot,  and “the three aspects of his personal credo – love of country, love of God, love of a good laugh – separately or in combination – shining through piece after piece in his large repository of works.”

Bono even quotes Gillis’ own description of the stirring finale of his Symphony Number 1, “An American Symphony” (1941): “The music grows quiet, in the reverence of meditation. Suddenly again is heard the sound of approaching conflict – the struggle – and instead of uncertainty, the music closes on a tremendous note of victory and praise for democracy… symbol of life…liberty…and eternal freedom!”

But then, instead of allowing the composer and his music to speak for themselves,  Roy Bono feels the need to apologize for the enthusiastic prose from Gillis. “This may, to our cynical minds, seem like gushingly naïve nationalism,” he writes. “But it’s hard for us today to fairly assess the Zeitgeist of the first half of the 20^th century, when the mere sight of the flag could actually bring a lump to the throat, a tear to the eye, of many Americans, so potent and revered a symbol it was.”

I don’t know where Mr. Bono lives, but in the America I inhabit the flag still brings “a lump to the throat, a tear to the eye,” and it’s still a symbol that’s “potent and revered.”

Bono continues with his reflections (written in 2006) on the “lost” America of 65 years earlier that produced the Gillis symphony. “One’s patriotism then was as proudly cherished as, and often intertwined with, one’s religion,” the commentator sighs. “Both were deeply sincere professions of faith almost inseparable from the notion of good citizenship –as apparently they were for the 28-year-old Gillis.”

It astonishes me that a serious music critic would fail to acknowledge that for many, if not most Americans, faith and patriotism still interconnect, and still play an obvious if not central role in our conceptions of good citizenship.

In the New York-centered world that produced this latest album of heart-felt praise to America by Don Gillis (ALBANY RECORDS, TROY 888) the composer’s heart-on-the-sleeve love of country seems hopelessly dated, embarrassingly old-fashioned. That slightly patronizing view of the great passions that animated the life of the Missouri-born, Texas-based, master symphonist represent the only sad note in an otherwise sparkling and optimistic album of tuneful, enthusiastic orchestral celebration. Good music, like love of America, should never go out of style.. 

    It’s late on Monday night, and I’ve just spent several hours researching and organizing my upcoming Townhall column “Victory Lessons from Ronald Reagan” (to honor Reagan’s birthday, February 6^th).

    One odd little fact captured my attention, but it didn’t really fit into the column; instead, I’ll share it here with all those who can appreciate a strange but significant piece of political trivia.

    When Reagan won the Presidency in 1980, crushing the incumbent Jimmy Carter 51% to 41%, he not only overcame a third party vanity race by a former Republican Congressman named John Anderson (his “Independent” Party drew 6.6% of the vote), but he also triumphed over by far the strongest Libertarian Party candidate in Presidential history.

    Amazingly enough, Ed Clark, the Libertarian standard bearer, won almost a million votes (921,188) for 1.06% of the total.

    To rational observers, a national campaign that wins only 1% of the vote looks pointless and pathetic, but by Libertarian standards the Clark campaign represented a veritable juggernaut, and the party’s breathtaking summit of achievement. Clark’s performance more than doubled all subsequent Libertarian nominees, even though some of them (like two time loser Harry Browne) raised and spent far more money for their sad little races. In terms of their percentage of the popular vote, Libertarian presidential candidates since the high-water mark of 1980 have drawn between 0.24% (David Bergland in 1984) and 0.5 (Harry Browne in his first race of 1996). Most recently, that burning hunk of unstoppable charisma Michael Bednarik earned a paltry 0.3% of the popular vote – less than one-third the showing that Ed Clark managed 24 years earlier.

    The point isn’t merely that the Loser-tarian Party has moved decisively in the wrong direction (you don’t build majorities by losing two-thirds of your voters), it’s that they happened to succeed best against the finest conservative candidate in recent history.

    In other words, the Libertarians lie or at least delude themselves when they claim that they will win votes by drawing people who are disillusioned with both big government Democrats and me-too Republicans. They drew more votes when running against the unequivocally conservative Ronald Reagan than they did against the likes of Bob Dole, either President Bush, or Gerald Ford for that matter.

    Thus, the argu